[iDC] Periodizing cinematic production

Jonathan Beller jbeller at pratt.edu
Mon Sep 14 01:39:12 UTC 2009


Hi all, forgive me for clogging your in-boxes. Luckily, the teaching  
week begins soon so we'll all get a break.

For the record, what I wrote was the following:

"Goux's work delineates the homologous structures of psychoanalysis  
and political economy. However, for all of its undeniable brilliance,  
it lacks a materialist theory of mediation. Goux lacks an answer to  
the question 'how do you get capitalism into the psyche, and how do  
you get the psyche into capital.?' They are isomorphic, but why"(CMP,  
25)?

So my immediate question, was in fact, following Patricia, how does  
"he" do it, not how does this isomorphism come about.

"Goux argues that 'the affective mode of exchange,' meaning the  
symbolic, is a function of 'the dominant mode of exchange,' meaning  
capital. While Goux's statement is accurate, what is left out is that  
it requires the history of twentieth-century visuality to make it so.  
The twentieth century is the cinematic century, in which capital  
aspires to the image and the image corrodes traditional language  
function and creates the conceptual conformation, that is the very  
form, of the psyche as limned by psychoanalysis" (25). The cinematic  
image as paradigmatic mediator between these two orders of production  
(political economy and the psycho-symbolic) better describes the  
historically necessary, mutual articulation of consciousness and  
capital expansion than does Goux's provocative but too-abstract idea  
of the 'socio-genetic process' in which social forms mysteriously  
influence one another or take on analogical similarities. Goux's  
theory of mediations itself lacks a general theory of mediation. It is  
only by tracing the trajectory of the capitalized image and the  
introjection of its logic into the sensorium that we may observe the  
full consequences of the dominant mode of production (assembly-line  
capitalism) becoming the dominant mode of representation (cinema).  
Cinema implies the tendency toward the automation of the 'subject' by  
the laws of exchange" (25-26).


And of course, the rest of the argument is that this itself a new mode  
of production, with the consequent transformations of language,  
affect, the subject, the human, hermeneutics, depth, time, etc. The  
visual turn is a cypher for all this.

Ok, gtg. Thanks for your comment Patricia -- I want to think more  
about it.

Best,
Jon





Jonathan Beller
Professor
Humanities and Media Studies
and Critical and Visual Studies
Pratt Institute
jbeller at pratt.edu
718-636-3573 fax








On Sep 13, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stmart96 at aol.com wrote:

> I too have found the discussion  stimulating, although hard to find  
> the time-space in which to speak or speak-up.  Thanks to John Sobol  
> for  an invite to mix it up.  I too am more than a technological  
> determinist  or rather less one  than a lover.   No more or less  
> than human beings, the technical object  as Gilbert Simondon would  
> call it, is an invention  an individuation that has granted ongoing  
> ontogenesis by also creating a milieu of self determination (or  
> further indetermination) so let it continue to grant and be  
> loved .    While technology differs from the technical object  along  
> the lines John Sobel suggests  below,  that is,  the potential is  
> perhaps captured in technology, but still or even so, it is the  
> domain of the technical object modulating what John refers to as  
> "the head of the curve" as well as  the fun and love of the kids.    
> So  I am presently teaching a graduate course on Freud and Deleuze  
> and felt shocked at Jonathan (whose work is much appreciated by me)  
> when he asked  "How do you get capitalism into the psyche, and how  
> do you get the psyche into capital?"   I assume what is meant here  
> is: How do "they" do that?   I was shocked because I thought that  
> different technologies  are emanations of  a dynamic ground where   
> the potentialities can inform or invent different relations for  
> psyche and technology, psyche and energy or force  and thus force,  
> energy and the market , capitalist  governance, work labor sex etc.   
> With this assumption I would say,  there is no 'in' of psyche    
> Perhaps there never was (Derrida says so  but so does Deleuze  who  
> does a really interesting theft of Freud's work) but more important   
> there is no 'in'  of the psyche (or not only an 'in' ) now  in  
> relationship to the digital,  the emergent in relationship to the  
> digital.  Psyche (its presently rethought energies and forces) has  
> escaped  the individual,  has dropped back down through the pre- 
> individual to ground or in-formation as a material force  an  
> ontogenetic force. This is an ontology for affect and affect  
> economies, among them capitalism. This  points I think away  from  
> the cognitive-ism or consciousness (albeit unconsciousness) of  
> Jonathan's question and  sends  his own  focus on "attention"  or  
> the labor of attention toward the body and to the transformation of  
> the body-as-organism  to a full body of desiring.   One reason I  
> love the digital is that is makes all of this seemingly abstract  
> stuff  so-not-abstract  but  accessible when we allow it to shift   
> criticism away  from the given-ness of a capitalist  logic  that  
> always knows what's coming  next and seeks to show how it will be  
> our fault that it did. Instead a way   is offered to respect  the  
> temporalities  at play,  which are put in play often by capital  
> (perhaps not often capitalism or capitalist governance).  The life- 
> itself that digital has enabled and which shows up in discourse  
> about biopolitics and necropolitics  is  not easy to capture without  
> producing  the fringe of indeterminacy that is life-y.  Even in this  
> awful times of war and terrorism torture poverty and death, the life- 
> y at least is good news  and asks us to pay more attention to  
> measuring  or capturing and its politics  which is non-organic and  
> surely non-human as well as human.   Well this is only a start for  
> me     More to come    Patricia  Clough.
>
>
> In a message dated 9/12/2009 6:21:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, john at johnsobol.com 
>  writes:
>
> This has been - as usual here on iDC - a highly stimulating  
> discussion. I hope my contribution contributes to its quality,  
> though it does come at this question from quite a different  
> perspective.
>
> I wish to return us to the outset of this thread, wherein Brian  
> quoted Jonathan thusly:
>
> "How do you get capitalism into the psyche, and how do you get the  
> psyche into capital?" asks the philosopher Jean-Joseph Goux. Drawing  
> on key insights from Gramsci, Simmel and Benjamin -- and  
> radicalizing the work of film critic Christian Metz in the process  
> -- Jonathan Beller gives this quite astonishing reply:
>
> "Materially speaking, industrialization enters the visual as  
> follows: Early cinematic montage extended the logic of the assembly  
> line (the sequencing of discreet, programmatic machine-orchestrated  
> human operations) to the sensorium and brought the industrial  
> revolution to the eye.... It is only by tracing the trajectory of  
> the capitalized image and the introjection of its logic into the  
> sensorium that we may observe the full consequences of the dominant  
> mode of production (assembly-line capitalism) becoming 'the dominant  
> mode of representation' (cinema). Cinema implies the tendency toward  
> the automation of the subject by the laws of exchange.... Understood  
> as a precursor to television, computing, email, and the World Wide  
> Web, cinema can be seen as part of an emerging cybernetic complex,  
> which, from the standpoint of an emergent global labor force,  
> functions as a technology for the capture and redirection of global  
> labor's revolutionary social agency and potentiality."
>
> I will begin by saying that I do not believe that this historical  
> trajectory gets to the heart of the matter. Valuable as it is in  
> certain respects in shedding light on our evolving world, I  
> nonetheless believe that it is a heuristic model that seems to fit  
> the facts, yet elides them. I will do my best to explain why I think  
> this.
>
> I have not read your book, Jonathan, so if I am way off the mark in  
> my interpretation of your words than that will be my fault. But it  
> sounds to me like a causal relationship is being established in the  
> above analysis, between cinema's evolution as a global cultural  
> force and the parallel advance of certain socially prescriptive  
> aspects of modern and post-modern industrial capitalism. The  
> cybernetic loop you describe suggests that cinema and capitalism are  
> engaged in a form of dance, impelled, once begun, by the alarmingly  
> potent logic of "assembly-line capitalism", that incriminates cinema  
> as both agent and victim. Certainly cinema, (and cineastes) in your  
> analysis appear as not just one of these two things,   but as both.
>
> With regard to the question of causality, I am unconvinced that  
> cinema's economic or epistemological architectures – as opposed to  
> its narrative themes or stylistic vagaries – played such a  
> fundamental causal role in the unfolding of the social dynamics of  
> "assembly-line capitalism". The reason I think this is that I also  
> reject, at a more basic level, the argument that 'industrialism  
> enters the visual via cinema' at all. In fact I think this  
> articulation entirely misses the essential relationship between  
> industrialism and the visual.
>
> The key to this relationship is the understanding that industrialism  
> is the more-or-less direct result of increased literacy. It is of  
> the eye, and it largely replaced the experiential techne of the ear  
> that preceded it, just as literate capitalism replaced the economies  
> of the ear that preceded it). As simplistic as this sounds, it is,  
> in my opinion, accurate and fundamental. It is no accident that  
> Scotland in the 18th century had the world's highest literacy rate  
> and was also the world's industrial incubator. It is no accident  
> that the popularization of literacy in Britain coincided with its  
> imperial rise. Nor is it an accident that the peak in world literacy  
> today coincides with the death of most of the world's oral  
> languages. The industrial age is a visual age. It is the triumphant  
> age of text, in which reading and writing come to rule the world  
> through their manifold representations in maps, constitutions,  
> lawbooks, forms, contracts, ledgers, deeds - and, of course -  
> blueprints, patents, technical specifications, reports, schemata,  
> manuals and the myriad textual tools that enabled industrialization  
> (i.e. the raster grid that Sean rightly indicates is so historically  
> definitive), as well as their resulting man-made mechanical  
> universe. And here I seem to hear the familiar "pshaw, this is  
> determinist claptrap" (though not perhaps from your lips, reader),  
> to which I reply: just take writing out of the equation and see what  
> degree of industrialism you are left with. Try it and see. There is  
> nothing left. Without the widespread dissemination of literacy,  
> industrialism crumbles utterly.
>
> Cinema, seen in this light, is a mere actor in the larger drama that  
> is literate culture's struggle to achieve global hegemony, and is  
> not the primary cause of anything, except perhaps an infinity of  
> shared dreams (no small thing, I admit). It is just one of many  
> monological industrial media shaped by the technical and psychic  
> architectures of print. Just as television would become as well.  
> Neither is anything but a talking book from my perspective. And so  
> to answer Goux's question: you get capitalism into the psyche via  
> the printing press, you get it via the rigid, powerful, monological  
> imperatives of print. As with industrialism, extract print from the  
> evolution of capitalism and nothing at all remains, not even a  
> trace. I don't even talk about capitalism myself, only of literate  
> capitalism, for capitalism is epistemologically indistinguishable  
> from literacy. (Though strangely, so in many respects is Soviet  
> socialism).
>
> The second part of your paragraph, Jonathan, is important too.
>
> Understood as a precursor to television, computing, email, and the  
> World Wide Web, cinema can be seen as part of an emerging cybernetic  
> complex, which, from the standpoint of an emergent global labor  
> force, functions as a technology for the capture and redirection of  
> global labor's revolutionary social agency and potentiality."
>
> As I have mentioned, I do not think that cinema and television are  
> more than accidental precursors to computing, email and the World  
> Wide Web. (Kind of the way Gil Scott-Heron seems to be the godfather  
> of rap, whereas his work is not directly related at all, only  
> indirectly.) And as I see it there are two cybernetic complexes in  
> effect here anyway; one hegemonic, one emergent; one literate and  
> one digital. Each of these two looped universes is indigenously  
> highly distinct from the other, yet bright minds with vast resources  
> are desperately trying to colonize the emergent one on behalf of the  
> ruling one, with some success. And of course defending the fort –  
> and actively taking the battle to these hungry entrepreneurs – are  
> revolutionaries of all shapes and sizes, your friends and mine,  
> seeking to counteract this unfeeling assault with art, autonomy,  
> activism and more. Much more.
>
> However, what matters is not necessarily how successful we and our  
> idealistic friends turn out to be. What seems to matter most is the  
> march of time, and technology. When Negativland pioneered its remix  
> work it caused outrage and conflict. With the passage of time,  
> however, the mashup has become a staple of everyday life. Not  
> because Negativland (or John Oswald or Bryan Gysin for that matter)  
> 'won' but rather because they turned out to be doing stuff ahead of  
> the curve. It was not a case of the good guys winning due to hard  
> work, the righteousness of their  message and the political  
> maturation of 'the people'. It just turned out that when the tools  
> advanced enough to make it easy and fun for kids to do, kids did it.  
> And that's basically all that revolution took to succeed. And soon  
> the kids will grow up. Lots already have.
>
> In this sense I am an unrepentant technological determinist. Not  
> that I think, for example, that the transition to post-literate  
> capitalism is a given. On the contrary, I expect things to get more  
> and more dangerous and bloody and I am not happy about that at all,  
> as the evolutionary conflict between the efficient and the  
> hyperefficient gains demographic momentum. So there is in fact an  
> urgent need for leadership, and by this I mean intercultural  
> leadership that constructively bridges the emergent and hegemonic  
> cybernetic loops  in the pursuit of sustainable and judicious  
> compromises (to say nothing of also reaching out and inviting into  
> the dialogue the colonized oral peoples of the world who have a  
> crucial role to play here, particularly in helping to stave off  
> literate capitalism's imminent ecocide.) Antagonizing the corporate  
> world for the sake of personal catharsis is fun and all, and I have  
> done it plenty in my art, aimed at 'bad guys' who couldn't have  
> cared less, but more useful I now believe is an engagement that  
> respects and enlightens, rather than unmasking villainous archetypes  
> in (our) everyday life. There just too many of us. :)
>
> Literacy too has certainly functioned "as a technology for the  
> capture and redirection of global labor's revolutionary social  
> agency and potentiality." Except when it wasn't. Except when it was  
> something else. For it has also made possible wondrous and wonderful  
> achievements (for some – the many and/or the few). Drawing hard and  
> fast boundaries between this or that idea, this or that system, this  
> or that morality, is a favourite literate game. But I think it has  
> served its purpose. Let's mix things up a little more, focusing on  
> what we have in common rather than where we differ; trying to find a  
> way forward that balances the benefits that each cybernetic vortex  
> can offer while also seeking to offset its ill effects. And then  
> look to the kids to make it happen.
>
> That sounds to me like a truly revolutionary program.
>
> (All of the above offered with the utmost respect for the pleasure  
> and privilege of this conversation and hopefully not sounding as  
> bitchy as I sometimes feel...)
>
> Thanks for listening,
> John Sobol
>
> www.johnsobol.com
> =
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20090913/afa9811a/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the iDC mailing list